Isolated or Connected: an Economic and Social View on Impacts of Children ’ s Migration on Elderly Care in China The 4th International Conference on Population.

Isolated or Connected: an Economic and Social View on Impacts of Children’s Migration on Elderly Care in China

The 4th International Conference on Population and Geographies

2007.07.12Chinese University of Hong Kong

John Ma

Director

Center for Spatial and Social Demographics

University of Science and Technology

Guowei Zhou

Project Assistant

Center for Spatial and Social Demographics

University of Science and Technology

*Thanks for NBS and supports from RGC6305/04H and NRC06/07.HSS01

Literature& Previous Studies

Arguments: urbanization and migration on the well-being of elderly

-: (Kosberg and Garcia 2004; UN 2002) Lose of young labor force and heavy farming burden Crash of traditional family support system Isolation between two generations

+: (Knodel 2005; Vanwey2004;Stark and Lucas 1988) Family strategy to diversify risks of household income Benefit both migrants and family members financially Maintaining contacts while away Exchange of Services between generations Division of labor

China Setting

Rapid Urbanization: 43%(2005) --70%(2025) Largest floating population: (130m) Hukou System

Previous empirical studies (Du 2005;Li 2004;Gu2003) Living Arrangement: Alone or in Skip-generation family Benefit local communities, but may cause some family problems

Our research design: Representative (a National representative sample) Comparable (migrant vs. non-migrant families; urban vs. rural)

Hypotheses We take a relatively positive view:

“Strategy” thesis: migration enhance economic advantage of original family,

including the support for elderly.

“Compensation” thesis: The longer children leave, the more they give to parents. The farer children leave, the more they give to parents.

“Isolation” thesis: Away but connected Elderly parents suffer in instrumental help and emotional

comfort.

The Data

2004 Chinese General Social Survey( CGSS)

Sample: Designed sample:11000 Elderly sample: 1792

IV: Outmig: having migrant children or not Mig_dur: 0.5y<mig duration<1y VS. 1y+ Mig_dis: intraprov vs. Interprov

DV: Economic: money transfer from children Social : instrumental help and exchange Emotional: Value system

Sample Description (N=1792)

Sex Age Mig Status

Female 40.1 60-69 61.5 No Mig 85.9

Male 59.9 70-79 31.9 With Mig 14.1

80+ 6.6

Education Area

Illiterate 30.6 East 30.9 No Mig 85.9

Elementary 40.3 Middle 44.1 Short-term Mig 4.9

Junior Midd 16.3 West 25.0 Long-term Mig 9.1

Senior Midd+ 12.7

Marital Status Hukou No Mig 85.9

Married 70.4 Non-agriculture 40.4 Intra-prov Mig 6.0

Widowed or single 29.6 Agriculture 59.6 Inter-prov Mig 8.1

600

800

1000

1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Rural Urban

Without Mig With Mig

Money Transfer from Children by Hukou and Migration Status

•For both urban and rural elderly, having migrant children do enhance the upward money flow from children

600 625

800

1000

800

1500

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Rural Urban

No Mig Shortterm Mig Longterm

Money Transfer from Children by Hukou and Migration Duration

•The duration of children’s migration affects the amount of money giving to parents left behind, particularly in rural areas.

•The pattern is much more obvious for long-term migrations, both at rural and urban areas.

600700

9001000

1500

1000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Rural Urban

No Mig Intraprov Interprov

Money Transfer from Children by Hukou and Migration Distance

•The distance makes a difference too in rural areas, and the farer you stay away, the more you give to elderly parents.

•But the pattern is not clear in urban areas.

Receive or not? How much elderly get?

1=yes 0=No Ln(trans) Tobit(trans)

Sex (Female)

Male 1.3*** -0.15* -136.9*

Age (60-69)

70-79 1.27*** -0.03** -96.9**

80+ 2.12*** -0.27** -429.2**

Education (Illiterate)

Elementary 1.1 0.35* 200.3*

Junior Midd 0.83 0.40*** 362.1***

Senior Midd+ 0.73*** 0.45*** 530.5***

Marital Status(Widowed/single)

Married 0.74*** -0.08 -112.7

Hukou (Non-agriculture)

Agriculture 3.48*** -0.23*** -409.5***

Area (East)

Middle 1.49*** -0.47*** -581.3***

West 1.46*** -0.60*** -627.5***

Mig Status (No Mig)

Short-term Mig 1.70*** 0.02 23.3

Long-term Mig 1.61*** 0.15* 200.8*

Model the Money Transfer from Children

•Elderly with migrant Children are more likely to receive money transfer, and migration effect is very significant.

•The migration effect on the magnitude of transfers are not that significant except for those elderly with long-term migrant children.

Rural

54.2

68.9

0

54.2

69.4

68.6

0

54.2

59.3

78.3

Without Mig

With

No Mig

Shortterm Mig

Longterm

No Mig

Intraprov

Interprov

Urban

53.3

50

0

53.3

50

50

0

53.3

57.1

65.4

Without Mig

With

No Mig

Shortterm Mig

Longterm

No Mig

Intraprov

Interprov

•The financial benefits are significant in rural areas where elderly with migrant children relatively higher socio-economic status.

•Such an effect doesn’t exist in urban areas except for those elderly with inter-province migrant children.

Self-perceived Economic Status of elderly by Hukou and Migration Status

Rural

30.8

38.7

0

30.8

40.7

37.4

0

30.8

28.8

48.3

Without Mig

With

No Mig

Shortterm Mig

Longterm

No Mig

Intraprov

Interprov

Urban

28.7

26.8

0

28.7

16.7

28.6

0

28.7

21.4

38.5

Without Mig

With

No Mig

Shortterm Mig

Longterm

No Mig

Intraprov

Interprov

Housework burden by Hukou and Migration Status

In rural areas, slightly heavier housework (8%) burden for elderly with migrant children, especially for those with inter-provincial migrants(18%).

The pattern doesn’t exist in urban areas (p>>0.5)

Contacts and value difference Agriculture Non-agriculture

Contacts (phone) No Mig 5.7 10.9

With Mig 4.8 9.6

Value No Mig 18.7 16.8

With Mig 17.6 12.2

SRH No Mig 20.5 21.8

With Mig 22.9 21.9

Med-cost Share No Mig 33.2 10.2

With Mig 37.3 12.4

**The test is not significant at 0.05

Conclusion

The interaction style between generations seems to be sort of adapted response to the change of environment and dispersion of family members, which to some extent promote an extended family system.

The above evidence comparing migrant with non-migrant families suggest: Migration do help left-behind parents in terms of financial

support. Time and space make a difference, especially in rural areas,

which strongly suggests “compensation” thesis behind. Elderly suffer a slight loss of instrumental help, but no obvious

evidence to show a decay of contacts and emotional relationship.

Big difference exists for urban and rural areas.